Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2024 2024 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 1456 Records

• 2024 (1) TMI 1376
  

  Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - issue already pending before the adjudicating authority of CGST, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - Levy of GST - Affiliation Charges collected from the Affiliated Colleges by a Government University (which is fully financed by state government) - HELD THAT:- Since issue raised by the applicant is already pending before the adjudicating authority of CGST, Udaipur (Rajasthan), which is evident from the written submission of the applicant, the application, in question, is liable to be rejected in term of Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017.

  The subject application for advance ruling made by the applicant is not maintainable and hereby rejected under the provisions of Section 98(2) of the CGST & RGST Act, 2017.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1375
  

  Reimbursement of GST Paid as per the Running Bills raised under the Contract - HELD THAT:- During the course of arguments, it is informed that a Committee has been constituted by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board to resolve the issues with regard to refund-less payment of GST. As there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, it would be appropriate to refer the matter of the petitioner to the Committee constituted by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a fresh representation before the said Committee along with all the relevant documents and if such a representation is made before the Committee, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and agreed terms and conditions.

  It is expected that the Committee shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  The present writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1374
  

  Grant of anticipatory bail - fraudulent transaction - offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- The applicant is granted privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.119 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) Cr. P.C. and also on the condition that the applicant will submit self-attested photocopy of his/her Aadhaar Card and also submit his/her mobile number before the learned court below which she/he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1373
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Classification of products - HELD THAT:- These Appeals are disposed of as not maintainable before this Court as they involve issue of classification of products and the appellant revenue is permitted to file appeal before the Apex Court under Section 35(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1372
  

  Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad I Commissionerate when the respondent-assessee failed to pay the amount @ 10% on the value of the exempted final product in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - HELD THAT:- There does not seem to be any conflict or dispute so far as Notification No.6/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003, prescribing the products shown in the table which is reproduced in the preceding paragraph falling under the exempted category from payment of excise duty w.e.f. 01.03.2003. To add with it, the rate of tariff as is reflected at Serial No.47 which again is reproduced in the preceding paragraph would reflect that the rate of tariffs to be collected is shown as “nil”. This substantiates the fact that these goods are one which stand exempted from payment of central excise tariff.

  Once when there is a specific notification exempting payment of central excise tariff on certain specified items both in the form of bulk drugs and also in the form of formulations where in the course of manufacturing formulations bulk drugs becomes the raw material and the same would stand exempted from payment of central excise tariff.

  Thus, no strong case has been made out by the appellant calling for interference - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1371
  

  Profiteering - purchase of Flat - contravention of provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant No. 1 during the hearing claimed that his objections had not been addressed in DGAP's report dated 14.02.2023 - the Commission under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 directs the DGAP to investigate the matter on the issues provided.

  The Respondent & Applicant No. 1 are also directed to extend all necessary assistance to the DGAP and furnish him with necessary documents or information as required during the course of the investigation.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1370
  

  Challenge to order passed by the authority under Section 73 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 - order impugned has been passed by the authority without assigning any reason - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, but, however, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case itself, it is directed that since the order passed by the authority under Section 73 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 is appealable, the petitioner, if so advised, may pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum agitating all the grievances, as have been raised in the present writ petition, in accordance with law.

  The writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1369
  

  Review petition - Judgement sought to be reviewed [2023 (8) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT] - Classification of services - Information Technology Software service or Intellectual Property Service - period from 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2009 - whether in respect of the particular transactions, service tax was payable under the classification mentioned in the show cause notices? -As decided by SC [2023 (8) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT] management, maintenance and repair services of computer hardware as well as software under the annual maintenance contract was covered by the category of “Management, Maintenance or Repair” services which was defined under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act. Thus, the classification mentioned in the first show cause notice was completely erroneous.

  HELD THAT:- There is no error apparent on the record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review. Review Petitions are dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1368
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal - non-constitution of the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.

  This Court is, therefore, inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1367
  

  Classification of activities of wireline logging and perforation during the relevant period from 14.05.2003 to 31.03.2008 - technical testing and analysis services or not - whether the term 'technical testing and analysis agency' has been defined under section 65(107) of the Finance Act? - HELD THAT:- As far as the order setting aside the Show Cause Notice is concerned, we find that there is no scope for interference.

  However, we make it clear that we have not given our imprimatur to the finding recorded by the High Court on the interpretation of clause (e) of Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. Subject to what is observed above, the Civil Appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1366
  

  Seeking to quash the order in Form GST APL-02 dated 08.01.2024 passed under Section 107 of the OGST/CGST Act - restoration of appeal to its original number - amnesty scheme - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum in terms of the amnesty scheme issued by the authority vide notification dated 02.11.2023.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1365
  

  Input Tax Credit - discrepancies found in returns filed for the financial year 2018-19 - wrongful claiming of differential credit - petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the impugned order came to be passed without extending any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the impugned order. Thus, only on the ground of non- compliance of principles of natural justice in form of not giving opportunity of personal hearing and in order that the competent authority is enabled to decide afresh, the impugned order dated 7.4.2022 and consequential letters dated 28.9.2022 and 11.10.2022 issued by respondent no.2 are quashed and set aside.

  The competent authority shall give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court and pass in accordance with law, fresh orders within two weeks from the date of affording such personal hearing.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1364
  

  Dismissal of petition - challenge to summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit calling upon the appellant to appear and produce certain documents and give evidence - HELD THAT:- Since the time stipulated in the summons had expired, nothing survives in the matter. The appellant need not have any apprehension to appear before the concerned authority and produce the documents called for.

  The appellant would contend that a patent suit is pending before this Court and there are the legal proceedings, which are also pending. In any event, the question of quashing of summons at the nascent stage would not arise.

  There are no ground to quash the impugned summons. However, this appeal is disposed off with an observation that no coercive action be taken against the appellant and the authority is free to issue fresh summons, call for the necessary documents and discuss the case with the appellant and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1363
  

  Cancellation of GST registration without providing opportunity of hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - time limitation to file an appeal - HELD THAT:- A similar issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in ROHIT ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER STATE GST AURANGABAD. THE DY. COMMISSIONER STATE TAX (APPEAL) AURANGABAD. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD [2023 (2) TMI 759 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Applying the aforesaid guidelines to the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioner, who is sufferer of unique circumstances resulting from pandemic and his health barriers, would be put to great hardship for want of GST registration. The petitioner who is small scale entrepreneur cannot carry on production activities in absence of GST registration. Resultantly, his right to livelihood would be affected. Since his statutory appeal suffered dismissal on technical ground, we cannot allow the situation to continue. We find that, in the facts and circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.'

  This Court in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE), SALEM BAZAAR. [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], has held that no useful purpose would be served keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as such assessees would still continue to his businesses and supply goods and services.

  The petitioner in this case is engaged in the business of executing works for Government and its agencies. Most of the small scale entrepreneurs like carpenters, electricians, fabricators, etc., are almost uneducated and they are not accustomed with handling of e-mails and other advance technologies - The Department shall workout the possibilities of issuing these notices in the respective regional languages and also by SMS and registered post. So that, the uneducated traders can also respond to these notices to some extent, otherwise, these notices will be an empty formality and will not serve any purpose for which it has been issued.

  The object of any Government is to promote the trade and not to curtail the same. The cancellation of registration certainly amounts to a capital punishment to the traders, like the petitioner.

  The impugned order dated 14.03.2023 cancelling the petitioner's registration is set aside. The petitioner is directed to file returns within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1362
  

  CENVAT Credit - insurance services - common services used for dutiable and exempted products - non-maintainenace of separate records - HELD THAT:- It is found that once the disputed CENVAT credit on the insurance service which was used both for dutiable and exempted goods has been reversed, nothing survives in the demand which is the assailed in this appeal because the case of the Revenue is that the appellant had taken CENVAT credit on common input services and had not maintained separate accounts and this credit has already been reversed.

  The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1361
  

  Rejection of appeal - time limitation - appeal rejected for reason that the appeal having not been filed within the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal was filed and was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the appeal be restored to the files of the Authority subject to the conditions under paragraph no. 3 being satisfied - Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid Notification by paying up the deficient amounts as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1360
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner has not produced any record to substantiate his case - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that though the petitioner had sought time for compliance of the notice, he was not given opportunity of hearing. But, the appellate authority, i.e., Addl. Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-II, Odisha, has mentioned in the order that in spite of sufficient opportunity being given, the petitioner did not appear, for which he has been constrained to pass the ex parte order on 16.01.2024 on the basis of the materials available on appeal record. But fact remains, whether the State is interested to earn revenue for the State or adhering to technicalities the authority is keen to harass?

  Considering the interest of the State for augmentation of revenue, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.AD210523001486L is liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, hereby quashed. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to reconsider afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, to short cut the time, this Court fixes 12.02.2024 on which date the petitioner shall appear along with all the records and also reply before the appellate authority, i.e., Addl. Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-II, Odisha so that the very same authority shall consider and pass appropriate order.

  The writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1359
  

  Denial of transitional credit - petitioner could not file Form 66 within the time limit for the reason that, during this period the petitioner did not have the GST registration number and later the petitioner had applied for GST registration - HELD THAT:- Petitioner had filed TRAN – 2 Form for the financial year 2017- 18. the petitioner had admitted the irregularity, however, he could not rectify the irregularity till the order came to be passed. Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 (4) (a) (i) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides for carrying forward transitional credit in TRAN – 2 Form. The petitioner, admittedly, did not file the correct form within the time frame prescribed and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the trans credit of Rs. 20,22,652/- which has been denied vide the impugned order on which interest and penalty has been levied.

  There is a provision of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act against the impugned order. Instead of approaching the appellate authority as prescribed under the statute, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find that the respondent assessing authority has committed any error of jurisdiction or manifest error of law which warrants this Court to entertain this writ petition when the remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner.

  The petitioner is permitted to enable the remedy of appeal, if he so advised against the impugned order. If the petitioner files the appeal within a period of three weeks against the impugned order in Exhibit P-13, the same shall be considered expeditiously by the appellate authority on merit without going into the question of limitation - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1358
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of registration of Petiitoner - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.

  Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons with in a further period of one month. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 11.01.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 11.04.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application with in one month thereafter - there are no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies with in the stipulated time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.

  The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not have any case that he had in fact filed a return in the continuous period of six months.

  In the present case it is specifically indicated that the reply was considered and that there was failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (1) TMI 1357
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - release of detained goods - HELD THAT:- As the petitioner has already filed the reply to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent in Form GST MOV-10, this petition is not entertained and the petitioner is relegated to approach the respondent authority for redressal of the grievance raised in this petition.

  The petition is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

123456789........ 73